Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

I was conceived by two Americans; that is not luck, just biology. Luck has something to do with what happens during your life but is not concerned with residency.

 

In other words, 'I' could not have been born anywhere else or it wouldn't be me. How is that lucky or unlucky?

 

 

 

We could push this further. I wasn't lucky to grow up half a block from a skating rink,, my parents house was half a block from the skating rink. I wasn't lucky to have Miss Kinne for my 8th grade teacher, Miss Kinne taught the 8th grade class there. Quantum mechanics aside, the world is fairly deterministic. When I speak of good luck, I mean that I myself had nothing to do with a good thing that happened. I have made choices in my life, some with good results, some with bad results, but the results have at least been influenced by choices I have made. Being born in the US had nothing to do with any choice I had made, just as living near a skating rink had nothing to do with any choice I had made.

 

Of course most things that happen are determined by choices. When my own choices have had no influence at all on the result, and the result is good for me, then I say I have been lucky.

 

I really think that most people use the word "lucky" in that way. Maybe also in other ways, sure, but I do not regard my usage as weird.

[Winstonm]

We could push this further. I wasn't lucky to grow up half a block from a skating rink,, my parents house was half a block from the skating rink. I wasn't lucky to have Miss Kinne for my 8th grade teacher, Miss Kinne taught the 8th grade class there. Quantum mechanics aside, the world is fairly deterministic. When I speak of good luck, I mean that I myself had nothing to do with a good thing that happened. I have made choices in my life, some with good results, some with bad results, but the results have at least been influenced by choices I have made. Being born in the US had nothing to do with any choice I had made, just as living near a skating rink had nothing to do with any choice I had made.

 

Of course most things that happen are determined by choices. When my own choices have had no influence at all on the result, and the result is good for me, then I say I have been lucky.

 

I really think that most people use the word "lucky" in that way. Maybe also in other ways, sure, but I do not regard my usage as weird.

Had your parents been American missionaries and you had been born in Guatemala, would that have been unlucky?

[kenberg]

Had your parents been American missionaries and you had been born in Guatemala, would that have been unlucky?

 

Well, I guess I would have US citizenship so that would be good luck. And of course just being born is good luck. Often luck is mixed.

 

Leaving aside terminology for the moment, I think it is important to distinguish between results, good or bad, that are due to choices that I have made and results that have nothing to do with choices that I have made. Of course often it is a mix. Recently (and often, for that matter) I played a bridge hand better than some did but not optimally. Had I found the optimal line I could not have been set. As I played it, I could have been set but the opponents missed that opportunity. So I give myself credit for finding a decent line, I take myself to task for not finding the optimal line, and I count myself lucky that the opponents did not defeat me when they could have.

 

I see it as good luck that I grew up half a block from a skating rink. But I found some older kids who taught me to skate by holding me up and doing some pushing, and then I practiced. So living near a skating rink was lucky, learning to skate was through effort. A useful distinction, whatever words are used.

 

So in 1939 I popped out and said

"Where am I?".

"In a hospital in Minneapolis"

"Great, lucky me!"..

Well, maybe not exactly like that.

[Winstonm]

Well, I guess I would have US citizenship so that would be good luck. And of course just being born is good luck. Often luck is mixed.

 

Leaving aside terminology for the moment, I think it is important to distinguish between results, good or bad, that are due to choices that I have made and results that have nothing to do with choices that I have made. Of course often it is a mix. Recently (and often, for that matter) I played a bridge hand better than some did but not optimally. Had I found the optimal line I could not have been set. As I played it, I could have been set but the opponents missed that opportunity. So I give myself credit for finding a decent line, I take myself to task for not finding the optimal line, and I count myself lucky that the opponents did not defeat me when they could have.

 

I see it as good luck that I grew up half a block from a skating rink. But I found some older kids who taught me to skate by holding me up and doing some pushing, and then I practiced. So living near a skating rink was lucky, learning to skate was through effort. A useful distinction, whatever words are used.

 

So in 1939 I popped out and said

"Where am I?".

"In a hospital in Minneapolis"

"Great, lucky me!"..

Well, maybe not exactly like that.

 

I have played a lot of poker. In Texas hold 'em, the odds say I should make a flush 1/3 of the time when I "flop" a 4-flush. If I played one day and had 6 four-flushes and never made a flush I would say I had been unlucky. If I made 4 out of 6 I would have been lucky.

 

So I agree with you that those things outside our control determine luck. But I don't think this is an infinite line (sorry if my terminology is poor there ). I don't see where a person is born as being on that line. In my thoughts, that line is not infinite and starts only at the point where choices can be made. It seems to me that only when a person has the ability to make a choice but something other than that choice is the arbiter of the outcome can it be called luck. Prior to that, it is something else. Karma? O.K. But whose?

 

Now, getting back to the original question: do I feel lucky to have been born in the U.S.? The only answer I know to give is that on a comparative basis I understand that most likely I am better off for having been born in the U.S. than in many, if not most other countries. But if you go back to the poker example - luck is a comparative to normal expectations - then luck was not involved.

 

I'm not sure this horse can even walk anymore, much less canter or trot. But this whip feels so good in my hand...

[kenberg]

Probably it is (past) time to leave off on my "Do you feel lucky" question, but I have been thinking a bit more.

 

I look back at my life growing up and I think "If kids could have something like that, I would feel good".A recent post of mine about Pell grants versus free community college is relevant. I don't want to tell a 17 year old "Hey, look what we have done for you, you now get two more years of free school at a community college". Not everyone wants to go to a community college. I wanted to go to the university, my friend Fred wanted to become a plumber. I went to the university and Fred became a plumber. A 17 year old is plenty old to have opinions "I want to do this, I don't want to do that". So that's my goal. Young people get to think about what is suitable for them, and then have a reasonable shot at making it happen. That's the way I see my early life, it's what I mean when I say I believe I was lucky, and it's what I want to see for others.

 

 

Ok, enough about being lucky.

[awm]

Here's a link to the "best country to live in 2021 list". According to the US news - whatever that is.

The best cities - according to CNBC are:

1. Auckland, New Zealand (96.0)
2. Osaka, Japan (94.2)
3. Adelaide, Australia (94.0)
4. Wellington, New Zealand (93.7)
5. Tokyo, Japan (93.7)
6. Perth, Australia (93.3)
7. Zurich, Switzerland (92.8)
8. Geneva, Switzerland (92.5)
9. Melbourne, Australia (92.5)
10. Brisbane, Australia (92.4)

 

I'm glad to see that our home retains the 7th position on the list!

 

This list is impacted a lot by Covid though (the accompanying article mentioned as much, and obviously people have had a higher quality of life for the last year and a half in in countries that handled Covid well). This is behind so many Australia / New Zealand cities being at the top, but hopefully we have another 100 years before the next global pandemic (and if not, many places will hopefully be better prepared).

[pilowsky]

Some of the reasons that Australia does so well in terms of livability:

Education. Completely free K-12, a small fee is charged for some University courses, but you don't have to repay it until you start earning a good wage. Research degrees are completely free, AND you get paid a stipend to do them, which is tax-free, and you do not have to pay it back.

Health. If you get sick, you will get treated free, including hip replacements, cardiac surgery, and cancer treatment. - everything.

Medicines. No essential medicine costs more than $20, and then only if you are not a pensioner.

If you lose your job, you get unemployment benefits. If you retire, you get a decent pension.

Weather. Excellent - except for drought, floods, cyclones etc.

Poisonous animals. Better off in New Zealand.

Airlines. QANTAS aircraft tend to stay in the sky - until they land.

Mateship. A much-maligned concept, but here's an example. They tried to do a competitive reality TV show here (Iron Chef Australia) - it didn't work so well because if one of the competitors were having trouble, the others would immediately rush over and help them.

[y66]

How Joe Manchin Can Fix the Filibuster by Ross Douthat at NYT

[Winstonm]

How Joe Manchin Can Fix the Filibuster by Ross Douthat at NYT

 

He needs to hurry.

[y66]

Not just coyotes wailing along the trail these days deep in the heart of Texas.

 

The Unlikely Demise of Texas’ Biggest Corporate Tax Break

[shyams]

Not just coyotes wailing along the trail these days deep in the heart of Texas.

 

The Unlikely Demise of Texas’ Biggest Corporate Tax Break

(Quote from the article) "The unlikely demise of the state’s most coveted corporate tax break has become a rare instance of Texas’ powerful business interests failing to get what they wanted from the Legislature. At least for now."(End quote)

Therein lies the rub.

 

A bit of prodding & pushing in the weeks to come, and soon enough there will be a loophole or an amendment or some other sleight of hand that extends the tax breaks. After all, the lawmakers have learnt never to disappoint the donor class.

[y66]

Matt Yglesias' take on the expanded Child Tax Credit: https://www.slowboring.com/p/something-really-good-is-happening

[kenberg]

Matt Yglesias' take on the expanded Child Tax Credit: https://www.slowbori...od-is-happening

 

He says:

 

I've also spoken to several people who have two big concerns about this rollout:

 

• The people who do get money may not realize what money they are getting, or why, or who to thank for it.
• The media leans left but also likes to be "tough," and so will probably focus a lot of attention on the minority of eligible people who, for administrative reasons, don't get the money.

That first point is a big deal. People need to be able to say "I understand the program. If I take actions A, B and C then the program will do the following for me. "

I know people who will be directly affected. They need to know exactly how they will be directly affected.

People who are struggling need to plan, and to plan they need to understand.

[johnu]

As previously noted, Repugnant politicians are making up a FAKE argument against extended unemployment benefits because there are a lot of jobs that are unfilled and the Repugnants argue that some people would rather collected unemployment benefits rather than take excellent below living wage jobs.

 

Amazon burns through workers so quickly that executives are worried they'll run out of people to employ, according to new report

 

Of the over 350,000 new workers it hired between July and October 2020, the report said, many only stayed with the company "just days or weeks."

 

Hourly employees had a turnover rate of approximately 150% every year, data reviewed by the Times demonstrated, reportedly leading some Amazon executives to worry about running out of hirable employees in the US.

 

Crap working conditions and low pay are the reasons people don't want those jobs.

[Winstonm]

He says:

 

[/color][/size][/font]

That first point is a big deal. People need to be able to say "I understand the program. If I take actions A, B and C then the program will do the following for me. "

I know people who will be directly affected. They need to know exactly how they will be directly affected.

People who are struggling need to plan, and to plan they need to understand.

 

I think this is his key point: who to thank for it.

A big problem the U.S. has is is expressing the value of the government. In many European countries, there seems to be a more direct impact on citizens' lives from the taxes they pay. If U.S. citizens could see and experience a more direct impact from government actions, I doubt there would be as much grousing about government, taxes, freedoms, and all those other right wing talking points.

[Winstonm]

And now for some good news:

 

The Senate on Tuesday unanimously passed a measure that would establish a federal holiday for Juneteenth, the day that marks the end of slavery in the United States.

[y66]

Amazon lawyers getting ready to increase their billable hours.

 

 

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

[kenberg]

I think this is his key point: who to thank for it.

A big problem the U.S. has is expressing the value of the government. In many European countries, there seems to be a more direct impact on citizens' lives from the taxes they pay. If U.S. citizens could see and experience a more direct impact from government actions, I doubt there would be as much grousing about government, taxes, freedoms, and all those other right wing talking points.

 

Politically, you are probably right. I am more thinking about what the recipient needs, and I think clarity is a good place to start.

 

 

Simple example:

A couple have two children, one not yet of school age, the other of school age, the parents could work but the job would pay modestly. Maybe it would be best for both parents to work full time, employing child care, or maybe it would be better for one parent to take care of the kids while the other works, or maybe they should do this until the younger child is of school age and then the parent who had been doing the child care can get a part time job or maybe a full time job, or, or, or,...

 

There is a lot to sort out here, and the best choice is apt to strongly depend on how the program is set up.

 

Even if we just think of the politics, clarity can make people appreciative. Once upon a time I was a grad student on an extremely tight budget. The IRS decided that part of a teaching assistantship could be considered a fellowship and thus not taxable. The details mattered. For example I was partially supported by an assistanship, partially supported by a prof's research grant, and I taught some in the summer, or sometimes had a summer grant. What's what? So several of us called the IRS to get help understanding. We got several different answers, apparently depending on who picked up the phone at the other end, or perhaps depending on just how our questions were phrased. When you are married and have a child, and have no money left at the end of a week, it's nice to know the details of this generous tax plan. We will worry about who to thank later, the first thing is to understand it.

A grad student eventually moves on. Some folks are perpetually living near the edge, and I think clarity helps a lot. And clarity can make people thankful. Well, if the clarity is "You're screwed" then that wouldn't make people thankful.

 

Anyway, clarity is good. Knowing who to thank is good. Hopefully we can do both. Then we don't have to worry about which is most important.

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

Politically, you are probably right. I am more thinking about what the recipient needs, and I think clarity is a good place to start.

 

 

Simple example:

A couple have two children, one not yet of school age, the other of school age, the parents could work but the job would pay modestly. Maybe it would be best for both parents to work full time, employing child care, or maybe it would be better for one parent to take care of the kids while the other works, or maybe they should do this until the younger child is of school age and then the parent who had been doing the child care can get a part time job or maybe a full time job, or, or, or,...

 

There is a lot to sort out here, and the best choice is apt to strongly depend on how the program is set up.

 

Even if we just think of the politics, clarity can make people appreciative. Once upon a time I was a grad student on an extremely tight budget. The IRS decided that part of a teaching assistantship could be considered a fellowship and thus not taxable. The details mattered. For example I was partially supported by an assistanship, partially supported by a prof's research grant, and I taught some in the summer, or sometimes had a summer grant. What's what? So several of us called the IRS to get help understanding. We got several different answers, apparently depending on who picked up the phone at the other end, or perhaps depending on just how our questions were phrased. When you are married and have a child, and have no money left at the end of a week, it's nice to know the details of this generous tax plan. We will worry about who to thank later, the first thing is to understand it.

A grad student eventually moves on. Some folks are perpetually living near the edge, and I think clarity helps a lot. And clarity can make people thankful. Well, if the clarity is "You're screwed" then that wouldn't make people thankful.

 

Anyway, clarity is good. Knowing who to thank is good. Hopefully we can do both. Then we don't have to worry about which is most important.

Agreed. Simplicity helps clarity. You go to the doctor; it costs you nothing out of pocket; that is simple and clear and you know who to thank.

[Gilithin]

And now for some good news:

 

And some not so good:-

Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama

Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia

Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee

Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona

Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas

Rep. Doug LaMalfa of California

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky

Rep. Tom McClintock of California

Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina

Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama

Rep. Matt Rosendale of Montana

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas

Rep. Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin

[pilowsky]

How old were you in 1968?

Watch young Americans debate whether or not to be in Viet Nam.

It's part of a series of youtube videos produced by documentary film-maker David Hoffman

https://bit.ly/YoungDebate

[y66]

We can retire the idea that President Joe Biden doesn’t do press conferences. With one more overseas on Wednesday, Biden has now done four solo news conferences, already matching George W. Bush’s first year and three ahead of Donald Trump in 2017; if he keeps up the pace, he’ll be mid-pack on that score for presidents from Richard Nixon on.

 

It’s still early, and it’s not unusual for presidents to take some time to figure out which formats work for them. Trump shied away from solo press conferences until his final year, but did a lot of joint ones with foreign leaders and took plenty of questions in other formats. Biden has only held two joint news conferences, with the pandemic cutting off normal diplomatic travel at first, but I expect he’ll gravitate more to such events going forward. I’m happy to see the formal solo conference survive after Trump almost abandoned it in his first three years (averaging just three a year). It will never thrive again the way it did when the broadcast networks dominated, but it can still be quite revealing.

 

Remember, all presidents do these things — one-on-one interviews, quick hits with local stations, call-ins to talk TV and radio, formal press conferences, informal sessions with the White House press corps — because it serves their purposes. It’s part of representation, as they explain to voters what they’ve been doing in the context of their campaign promises. It’s part of electioneering for those presidents seeking (or at least potentially seeking) another term. It’s also a way to negotiate; there are times when it’s useful for the president to make his or her positions public, thereby making them harder to walk away from. And press conferences give presidents an opportunity to direct attention to programs or organizations or people, meaning that they create opportunities to offer something valuable.

 

Biden handles all of this … adequately. He’s more articulate than either Bush; more in control of facts than Ronald Reagan; able to speak directly to regular voters better than Jimmy Carter or, in this format, Barack Obama, who never really found a way to make formal news conferences work for him. Like most of his predecessors, Biden is an experienced politician who knows how to duck questions he doesn’t want to answer and transition to topics he’d prefer to talk about. That’s the good side. Biden also can seem old (which isn’t surprising, given his age); he’s fine on substance, but he does search for words often enough that it’s noticeable, and his apparent energy level isn’t consistent. And he’s apt to lose his cool if he thinks a question is foolish, as happened Wednesday. Leaving aside Trump’s tantrums, Biden on this score is probably most comparable to Harry Truman; it didn’t help Truman, and it doesn’t help Biden.

 

That said, Biden also apologized a while later to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, which is also something unusual about him — he is, perhaps uniquely among presidents, an apologizer. Sometimes he takes it to silly extremes, as he did during debates last year when he more than once apologized for going over his time limit, something virtually every candidate does and virtually none of them are sorry about. I don’t know that it’s especially important, but I do think it’s refreshing to have a president who’s able to say he’s sorry about things.

[Winstonm]

How old were you in 1968?

Watch young Americans debate whether or not to be in Viet Nam.

It's part of a series of youtube videos produced by documentary film-maker David Hoffman

https://bit.ly/YoungDebate

I was 17, and it sucked to be 17 in 1968.

[kenberg]

How old were you in 1968?

Watch young Americans debate whether or not to be in Viet Nam.

It's part of a series of youtube videos produced by documentary film-maker David Hoffman

https://bit.ly/YoungDebate

 

This was an interesting video, I may try watching others in Hoffman's series.

 

 

I was 29 in 1968. I was a first year faculty member in 67-68, my second daughter was born in 67. I think it was in 66 that my student deferment was cancelled and I was re-classified as 1A. But I was 29 and mostly they wanted younger guys. So I was not completely safe from the draft, but it was unlikely.

 

I was not a hippie. I grew a beard and long hair for a while but decided I looked ridiculous. When I went to the barber to get the long hair cut off he was ecstatic. Business had been slow. He brought out pictures of is family, his wife and kids, told me how hard things were for barbers, and was really glad to see me.

 

I voted for Hubert Humphrey in the fall. He was a Minnesotan. His career was really ruined by being VP for Johnson. His own fault.

 

I was busy with traditional life. I might be the only person of my generation who has never smoked pot. I had friends who used LSD. I don't think it went well for them in the long run.

 

A crazy era for someone born in Minnesota in 1939.

 

It was interesting seeing those high school kids from back then.

[Winstonm]

Is the Manchin infrastructure compromise a win for moderation? From what I've heard today, 11 Republican senators are in favor of this compromise, 1 more than is needed to pass the 60 vote threshold. It does appear that Moscow Mitch has been unable to reign in his stallions.

 

Surely, that has to be a step in the right direction. The one thing Biden seems to understand is time - nothing big gets done in haste. And that includes battling back against the far right tide.